(1) The story was complete bullshit, and the removal of the couple was completely justified, or
(2) It was a legitimate story, and the removal of the couple was not justified.

Apparently you automatically choose to assume #1. The problem with that is that sometimes bureaucrats make bad decisions, either because they're incompetent, overworked, underpaid, lazy, or they simply don't care.

Since someone felt it was important enough to write a story about it, I don't see the harm in asking a third party to check it out. If it turns out the story was just a hatchet job, there's no harm done. But if the bureaucrat DID make a bad decision, it's a chance to save somebody's life from being ruined.

It doesn't seem like too much of a price to pay to me, and I know exactly what it's like to have to put a parent into a nursing home because they can no longer care for themselves. I've done it. It was one of the hardest decisions of my life.

I never said I had a problem with anything being checked out. Of course it should be checked out. However there are 3 mentions of symptoms specific to dementia--2 by the children. 1) AoA stated that she couldn't carry on a conversation-with examples 2) Children took them to eat and they got confused and 3)despite living where they have been for decades they can't drive because "they would just lost"